English Literature

Has the essential idea of rebellion changed over time No, I dont think so. Perhaps the nuances, the connotations, and the relations have shifted and adjusted a bit but, in essence, I still believe that the idea of rebellion has kept its core meaning I still believe that no matter what time or circumstance the idea of a rebellion still holds to its meaning.
    In the Merriam-Webster dictionary, a rebellion is defined as being an opposition to a dominant entity  whether person or thought or government it is also an instance of defiance or resistance against some ruling force. This is the meaning which I see as true no matter where one decides the use the word and the idea of rebellion and the texts below will show that even across literature this is still something that holds. Now, it might be that for some, the idea of a rebellion would involve physical revolt and even violent uprising however, this is not always a necessary component to the idea of rebellion. Basing on the dictionary definition, a rebellion need not always manifest itself in physical displays because a rebellion of thought or of belief or of spirit, even, is possible. Apart from that, the idea of a rebellion will also always possess the duality rising from the fact that the judgment of the goodness or the justness of any rebellion will be based upon two opposing sides because the very idea of the event of a rebellion alone already pits two factions or entities against one another.  More often that not, though, one would see that the very justness or goodness that is being put into question is supported by the fact that these rebels are going against an oppressive status quo.
    For example, in the texts Canada to England and History Lesson, one would see two of the the rebel voices in these poems trying to get their messages up out of the status quo of the accepted history lessons the poems rebel against the dominant history and resist the common flow of English assimilation. The two poems show violence, yes, but they do not in themselves cause physical violence. Symbolic violence is done through rejection of a status quo, yes, but it is still not the commonplace violence that people are used to.  To be more specific, in History Lesson the poem goes

Pioneers and traders bring gifts
Smallpox, Seagrams and Rice Krispies
Civilization has reached the promised land.

Between the snap crackle pop of smoke stacks
and multi-coloured rivers
swelling with flower powered zee
are farmers sowing skulls and bones
and miners pulling from gaping holes
green paper faces
of smiling English lady
The colossi in which they trust
while burying
breathing forests and fields
beneath concrete and steel
stand shaking fists
waiting to mutilate
whole civilizations
ten generations at a blow. (Armstrong)

This excerpt shown above is a rebellious voice, all right because it raises a dissenting voice that clashes with the usual depiction of colonizers as educators and bringers of civilization. Although the poem does go and say that civilization has reached the promise lang (Armstrong) it also goes on to point out more horrors of what the colonizers brought. There is smallpox, buried breathing forests and fields, etc (Armstrong). It shifts the attention of readers onto the horrors of what the colonizers brought with them rather than the glamorized gifts that the English explorers brought. Now, even in the 19th century poem Canada to England the same thread of rebellion can be seen, although it may be directed in the opposite direction.

How sounds my voice, my warrior kinsman, now
Sounds it not like to thine in lusty youth--
A world-possessing shout of busy men,
Veined with the clang of trumpets and the noise
Of those who make them ready for the strife,
And in the making ready bruise its head
Sounds it not like to thine--the whispering vine,
The robe of summer rustling thro the fields,
The lowing of the cattle in the meads,
The sound of Commerce, and the music-set,
Flame-brightened step of Art in stately halls,--
All the infinity of notes which chord
The diapason of a Nations voice

My infants tongues lisp word for word with thine
We worship, wed, and die, and God is named
That way ye name Him,--strong bond between
Two mighty lands when as one mingled cry,
As of one voice, Jehovah turns to hear.
The bonds between us are no subtle links
Of subtle minds binding in close embrace,
Half-struggling for release, two alien lands,
But Gods own seal of kindred, which to burst
Were but to dash his benediction from
Our brows.  Who loveth not his kin,
Whose face and voice are his, how shall he love
God whom he hath not seen (Crawford)

Canada to England openly welcomes the English into Canada and so goes against the grain of anti-British sentiment of that time. The poem directly acknowledges two mighty lands () as one and praises the virtues that come with the mingling of Canada and England. The poem, in itself, though not a physical weapon, is  the kind of weapon that goes against the dominant beliefs and challenges the pervading thoughts of the time thus causing and inciting resistance to domination in the like-minded. Comparing these two poems, one can see that though they tackle very different beliefs and come very different historical periods, their purpose and their still do intersect and show us that rebellion, in whatever form, does not vary too much.
    Now, another good example that would the universality of the idea of rebellion is through George Orwells classic dystopian novel, 1984. The novel can be seen as also speaking of colonizers and domination, but, in this book, the colonization and the domination has gone so much farther than just the colonization of land it has gone on into the colonization and the domination of a mans mind and identity and it is here that readers are able to really that rebellion may not necessarily exist only in the physical sense. The main characters, ultimately, might have not been able to win their rebellion but, still, they were able to make their own space against Big Brother in their secret meetings and even in the corners of their minds. As Winston, the main character of the novel said They cant get inside you. If you can feel that ... staying human is worth while, even when it cant have any result whatever, youve beaten them. (Orwell). This excerpt shows how rebellion does not really need grand displays of physical revolts or insurrections it just needs the rebel to be able to stand against and resist the status quo and the domination of an external force. The novel shows us again how the idea of a rebellion still stays true to its essential definition of resisting a domination and it also strengthen the idea that a rebellion will always exist when there is the oppressive force that forces people to bend under a will other than their own.
    Through these three texts, I believe that the idea of rebellion continues to be the same no matter what era the idea is invoked.